Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I thank Senator Daly and acknowledge that this is something he has supported over the last number of years too. On the Senator's point about the independence of the chair, the 2018 report indicated that the system was independent and robust but that this legislation could strengthen and add to this by changing the role that is currently done by the director of the appeals office to this review panel. At present the director of the appeals office is appointed through the Public Appointments Service and the appointment is signed off by the Minister. The director is Ms Lynda O'Regan, who is seated on my right. There are 13 appeals officers on the appeals panel and each is responsible for dealing with the separate appeals. A competition takes place to choose the deputy director of the appeals office from among the 13 appeals officers. Mr. Pat Coman is the deputy director. The director is appointed by the Public Appointments Service separately from the 13 appeals officers.

Where there is an appeal on a point of law or fact to any of the decisions of the appeals officers, the director of the appeals office decides the appeal. There are between 25 and 30 of such appeals every year. This legislation will mean the role of the director in deciding these appeals will transfer to the review panel. It is, therefore, another step of independence. The members of the panel will be appointed by the Minister. I expect that will be done by seeking expressions of interest. We have made a commitment to ensure there is farmer representation on the review panel. Having people with practical experience of farming is a key aspect of it. The Minister, as part of that, will appoint the chair of the review panel. It is the Minister who appoints the chair of many boards, having considered who he or she feels would be a good competent and independent person to give oversight. I do not see that as in any way compromising the independence of the review panel because it is already independent of the appeals panel. Either the director or deputy director will sit on the new review panel. However, the director or deputy director will not have had any previous input in the initial decision of the appeals officer because that is done separately by the appeals officer. The appeals board and the new review panel will be substantially independent of each other and there will be gaps between them. Having the Minister appoint the chair will not compromise that independence.

Senator Daly stated the decision to have remote hearings should be done with the agreement of the appellant. I agree and that is an adjustment we will make in the legislation. The committee should include such provision in its report because it makes sense. Including it in the legislation would not mean it would be the only thing offered. The intention is to have it there as an option should the appellant wish to avail of it. It is important that we refine the legislation to make it clear that remote hearings will only be held where appellants wish to have one and it would not be the only option available to them but would only be provided at their convenience and to suit them.

I agree there is a need for timely decisions.

Last year about 50% of the decisions made by way of the appeals office with appeals officers would have been completed within three months of the appeal being submitted. The average time was about six months. It is important that those timeframes are kept as concise as possible because it is important that people get timely decisions. On the question of whether appeals are being kicked up the line, as such, or kicked up to the video referee, there is no evidence of that and I would not agree it is happening. The appeals officer has to make a decision. Every appeals officer wants to make sure that the decision is robust and is appropriate because naturally there can be some issues. If the officer is making negative decisions, for example, and the negative decisions being appealed by the applicants to the appeals panel are getting overturned more than they should be then this is highlighting for that appeals officer that he or she is making decisions that are being overturned because they are not robust. I would not see any incentive in that. There has never been any evidence of that either. There is no sign that this is the case given that at the moment, on a point of law or on a factual basis, there are only 25 to 30 currently that go as appeal to the director.